ALTO Virtual Interim Meeting Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:00AM US Central - 10:10 AM US Central Vijay K. Gurbani and Jan Seedorf, ALTO chairs. Attendees: 22-25 Note takers: May （Haoran） Richard Yang Jabber scribe: Vijay K. Gurbani Proceedings are archived at: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/10/27/alto/proceedings.html Meeting started and agenda was bashed. Lyle Bertz indicated that he will coalesce two talks into one timslot. Vijay noted that there is one document pending with the WG: draft-ietf-alto-deployments-12. This draft has been through WGLC and is gated on the shepherd (Vijay) to finsih the proto-writeup. The draft should be out of the WG by Nov. 15, 2015 the latest. W. Roome, ALTO Incremental Updates draft-ietf-alto-incr-updates-sse-01 Wendy presented the changes since -00 and noted that it is past its milestone deadline. (NOTE TO CHAIRS: update milestone deadlines.) There was a discussion on why must ordinal costs be integers (as specified in the base ALTO RFC). The chairs urged this discussion to be taken to the list so the WG could focus on the next steps with this draft. A few WG members (Hans) indicated that they are working on implementing this draft and have been involved in off-line interoperability tests. Big question under discussion for next steps was: should the draft wait until HTTP/2 became widely deployed or should we take the draft to WGLC now? The general consensus of the group was to proceed with the current version of the draft and not wait until HTTP/2 became widely deployed. At the appropriate time that wide deployment of HTTP/2 occurs, the decision to revise the (then) RFC corresponding to this draft can be made. W. Roome, ALTO Interoperability Test Specification draft-roome-alto-interop-ietf93-01 Wendy indicated that the IETF 93 interoperability event was a resounding success, no bugs were found in the ALTO RFC (RFC 7285). All slips that occurred during the interoperability were huam foibles. There are on-line test tools available from Alcatel-Lucent. The big question was: should we make this an RFC? The general discussion in the group was that yes, the work in this draft is important should proceed towards an RFC track for archival purposes. The chair (Vijay) noted that there are ways to move work towards an RFC in an AD-sponsored independent stream if there is no charter deliverable corresponding to the work item, and if the WG feels that this work deserves to move ahead as such, then the chairs will facilitate. (NOTE TO CHAIRS: talk to AD to move this work towards RFC as an independent stream.) L. Bertz, e_ALTO project draft-bertz-alto-aggrimpl-00 Lyle discussed e_ALTO (Erlang ALTO) that he had brought to the IETF 93 interoperatability event. Talked further about how and where to aggregate data coming from multiple sources to ALTO: the client can aggreagte or third-party aggregation via another ALTO server. Lyle has some relevant experience from running aggregation in e_ALTO. Richard Yang liked this work, as did other folks attending the meeting. The chair (Vijay) noted that this draft may benefit from Piotr's inter-ALTO work and urged the relevant authors to coordinate activities by next IETF. The chair (Vijay) summarized the work as being of interest to the working group in general, but where the work ends up in the WG stream needs to be determined by the working group, preferably before the next IETF in March 2016. L. Bertz, Mobility Network Representation in ALTO draft-brtz-alto-mobilitynets-00 Lyle went through the draft on how to provide an EPCS based mechanism that applies to many different applications (CDNi, DMM) and that generalizing point of attachment for a mobile host (UE) as a PID allows the network topology to change without impacting the costs. The chair (Vijay) summarized the general consensus of the attendees towards this work as positive and for now the work should continue on the list as an independent submission. K. Gao, Routing State Abstraction draft-gao-alto-routing-state-abstraction-01 Kai presented his work on how path vector as a solution to the problem of allowing applications that require multi-flow coordination. The chair (Vijay) noted that this is important work towards the charter deliverable of a graph representation format in ALTO. The next steps for the draft was to continue its trajectory in the WG as an independent submission until such time that one or more drafts are used to satisfy the charter deliverable of a graph representation format. J. Wang, ECS for flows: ALTO Extension draft-wang-alto-ecs-flows-00 Jason made the case for ALTO to support multiple address types (besides the IP address type it supports now) plus some flow constraints (by naming protocols, limiting port numbers, or ToS bits). There appears to be support and interest for this work in the WG, especially because the work in the draft may be beneficial to large enterprise networks. The next step for the draft was to continue on the independent stream for 1-2 more cycles. J. Zhang, Experiences of implementing ALTO in OpenDaylight draft-zhang-alto-opendaylight-impl-00 Jensen presented his work in designing and implementing an ECS ALTO service in OpenDaylight. Unfortunately, time constrains prevented an indepth look at lessons learned from this experience. The chair (Vijay) urged Jensen start a discussion on the working group mailing list to distill lessons learned from his work. R. Yang, ALTO Extension: General cost types for path vectors and others draft-yang-alto-general-cost-type-00 draft-yang-alto-pv-topology-00 Richard presented his work on generalizing the cost-mode to a broader set of data types and on "parameterizing" the cost map service. The chair (Vijay) noted that this work ties in with the charter deliverable of a graph representation format, for which the WG does not yet have any candidate drafts. In this context, it is urged that the WG participants pay close attention to the set of drafts that discuss path vector and other similar extensions to determine whether we can coalesce around a set of drafts to address the open charter item. Richard was asked to continue moving the work ahead as an independent submission until the time that the WG decides on candidate draft(s). P. Wydrych, Inter-ALTO problem statement and next steps draft-dulinski-alto-inter-problem-statement-02 Piotr is mostly interested in determining next steps for this draft. The draft has not changed since IETF 93. The chair (Vijay) noted that the work has been around for a few IETF cycles, and in fact, has some synergies with the work the Lyle Bertz presented on e_ALTO and aggregation. Piotr and Lyle were urged to consult and determine how to move their respective works ahead, possibly as a unified draft (?). S. Randriamasy, Multi-cost ALTO updates draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-01 Sabine went through the changes in the draft (see slides). She has received updates on Section 1 (Introduction) from Richard Yang and Wang Xin that need to be included in a revised version. She would like to get WG feedback and prepare for WGLC. The chair (Vijay) noted that the draft has been discussed at many IETFs, even before it became a working group item and as such, is fairly mature. He requested the authors to revise the draft to include all known comments so far in preparation for a WGLC, preferably before March 2016 IETF. H. Seidel, Experiences with ALTO map calculation from network data draft-seidel-alto-map-calculation-00 Hans presented his work on the challenges in creating ALTO maps from network data. The general consensus of the attendees appeared to favour the work as an interesting exercise. The chair (Vijay) asked whether the work had any bearings on SSE. Hans indicated that he has been implementing SSE. S. Randriamasy, ALTO Cost Calendar updates draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar-05 Sabine went through the updates to the draft. The chairs (Vijay) noted that this draft has been presented in many IETFs but is not a WG item. Clearly, there appears to be interest in this draft, especially for scheduling large-scale data transfers. The decision on whether or not to adopt as a WG item will be made on the list before the March 2016 IETF. End of meeting.